|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2013 10:32:22 GMT -6
It's like tattooing their baby using descriptions of other people's kids.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 19, 2013 11:22:29 GMT -6
If you had to state the goal of the mixing process in one line, what would it be?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2013 11:37:10 GMT -6
Is this a test?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 19, 2013 11:53:36 GMT -6
"Turd polishing"
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 19, 2013 12:19:36 GMT -6
Are you afraid of failing? Why would you care? Can I come up with any more Yoda questions to answer a question? Just trying to better understand where you're coming from. I've observed the meaning, purpose, and expectation of mixing shift drastically over my decades of doing it. The merging of digital editing/content manipulation tools with those of audio is responsible. And, people who now track with mixing in mind. Meaning--artist who track with thoughts like "I'll automate the volume on this and it will be fine". "I'll just mute this section in the mix". Recent job...I mentioned to the client how hard I'd worked to get the bass where he liked it (and I mentioned because he singled it out as "you gotta tell me how you did that")...but, then apologized saying he would've retracked it if he'd known it was going to be an issue. Anyway--the thing there is...he thought I meant it was a challenge due to his performance. And to be blunt--I don't care how good/bad/groovy/not his performance is--that's not my concern when mixing. My issue was that it was a "boingy" active single coil through a clean DI...in a style that is very 70s folk. It was about the tonal balance with everything else that was my "issue". Retracking it--same player/bass/DI would in NO way have remedied that. I actually SOLD my Jazz bass last year because I'm lazy. A P you just plug in, play and then come mix time, maybe it needs a little HPF and a few DB of slow compressor to retain the attack dynamics while suppressing the sustain. I intentionally NEVER screw with people content. It's the unwritten rule I live by. I mean-unless they ask me to "hey can you edit this out...or tune this...etc". I will tell you mine: I get all the tracks clearly heard in their own space and achieve the best sonic balance of what is on the table-and do so in honor of the artist's vision. While I understand utter and complete transparency without prejudice isn't possible for anyone...it's the gold standard I strive for. It should sound like what you played--only now you can clearly hear everything...nothing jutting out disrupting the feel-nothing taking a listener out of the musical moment...I get leery of mix engineers who consider their work turd polishing. Someone is trusting you with their baby. It's a job of care taking, cleaning, and presentation. Their baby is already beautiful to them...
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 19, 2013 12:29:35 GMT -6
I've learned people are fickle. One person might hear a single note out of tune on a track and flip out. Another might play the whole track with a slightly flat string and say that it's fine and not to worry.
Some will hear a mix and grin from ear to ear having heard their work come to fruition, while another might hear it and cry that it's not how they imagined. Sometimes it's the person playing, sometimes it's the wrong instruments, sometimes they just change their mind and want to go a different direction.
I think the biggest thing I've learned is not even a technical trick. It's not to get bent out of shape when the customer does. Keeping an even keel in the shitstorm is the best thing I've learned about mixing. The rest is just about not screwing up the artist's sound when it sounds good and fixing it when it sounds bad.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 19, 2013 12:37:09 GMT -6
I get leery of mix engineers who consider their work turd polishing. Someone is trusting you with their baby. It's a job of care taking, cleaning, and presentation. Their baby is already beautiful to them... It's cool, you can try to chop me down underhandedly, but as I just said, I'm not going to get bent out of shape. It may be their baby, but it's my work. If they don't like what I'm doing, then it's quite possible I'm not the right person for the job. My work is as much my baby as their song is theirs. This is a collaboration as much as anything in this world. If I produce crap, only crap will come to me. Once the artist realizes that it's crap, they'll blame me, not themselves, and the work will dry up as word gets out that I make crap mixes. This still doesn't change the fact that a lot of times, you have to be the one to call their baby ugly and give it plastic surgery. Not doing so allows them to keep making sound that is bad and that is an injustice to the customer as much as changing their signature sound is. Sometimes walls have to be broken and if an artist can't take criticism, then they are in for a real short musical career and a lot of the time, they'll thank you for it after they've realized what you've done for them (very similar to your bass story). EDIT: Anyway, turd polishing. Yes. I've spent time working upwards from the bottom and that has meant dealing with folks who have good ideas but poor equipment, amatuer or newb playing skills, or misconceptions about their sound(too much delay/reverb, etc) and need to have things polished by someone who knows how or is at least willing to give it a shot. That's me. I'm only now getting to a point where the jobs are getting better and easier so that I don't have to do so much polishing, but the expectations of the customer are the same. Their expectation is that whatever they give me, I have to make it sound good. Sometimes I have the skills and equipment to do it, sometimes it takes ingenuity, sometimes it doesn't work, but I still have to make it be the best regardless of the input. So yes, I wear the turd polisher badge proudly.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 19, 2013 13:15:56 GMT -6
I get leery of mix engineers who consider their work turd polishing. Someone is trusting you with their baby. It's a job of care taking, cleaning, and presentation. Their baby is already beautiful to them... Case in point.. If that ain't turd polishing, I dunno what is..
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 19, 2013 13:50:51 GMT -6
Really? The fact that he ignored my rec to NOT use the compressor means it's polishing a turd? The fact that he's not a fabulous tracking engineer? Or maybe doesn't have good monitoring...?
You're confusing sonic manipulation or reversing of poor tracking engineering choices....with content/performance manipulation.
My "leery"...is simply due to the attitude towards mixing I laid out, brotha--not a personal judgement. If that's the production service you provide, it's what you provide. There's nothing wrong with that...and we're certainly not gonna be competing for the same work, as I'm not interested in that. Which was my point in asking John what mixing meant to him. If he calls that "mixing", too...then no doubt I understand his analogy.
You've been clear about what it means to you. I've been clear on what it means to me. Don't take anything I've said as any kind of personal attack, because it certainly wasn't meant that way. I apologize for "leery"...I see how that read....not how I intended.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 19, 2013 14:21:49 GMT -6
I'm not confusing anything. Sonic manipulation IS what mixing is all about. A lot of times I have to manipulate the poor sonics due to poor tracking choices. I call that turd polishing. Why? because it's a sarcastic way to make humor out of the worst part of having to do this type of work. It's either that or let it get you down and you burn out.
|
|
|
Post by henge on Dec 19, 2013 15:42:01 GMT -6
I think the biggest thing I've learned is not even a technical trick. It's not to get bent out of shape when the customer does. Keeping an even keel in the shitstorm is the best thing I've learned about mixing. The rest is just about not screwing up the artist's sound when it sounds good and fixing it when it sounds bad. +1. This about sums it up for me.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 19, 2013 15:42:09 GMT -6
I just work on whatever the artist's vision. If that means re-tracking, fine.
I'd rather not be invasive, but some people need it for various reasons. I'd literally rather not have to edit anything - but you can't always take that attitude.
It's not my main line of work is the flip side. Most of the time if I mixed something I tracked it, and I rarely let myself get painted into a bad place during tracking.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 19, 2013 15:49:05 GMT -6
I'm not confusing anything. Sonic manipulation IS what mixing is all about. A lot of times I have to manipulate the poor sonics due to poor tracking choices. I call that turd polishing. Why? because it's a sarcastic way to make humor out of the worst part of having to do this type of work. It's either that or let it get you down and you burn out. Fair enough. MY misunderstanding of what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 19, 2013 16:04:13 GMT -6
I think the biggest thing I've learned is not even a technical trick. It's not to get bent out of shape when the customer does. Keeping an even keel in the shitstorm is the best thing I've learned about mixing. The rest is just about not screwing up the artist's sound when it sounds good and fixing it when it sounds bad. +1. This about sums it up for me. I've even had bands get into arguments about how someone is playing something and that member quits, or bandmembers get upset when another wants to change things in the middle of recording which leads to a session of "tell all" and everybody starts talking shit and the band breaks up right there in the studio. Sometimes I think learning not to get bent out of shape means not taking sides either..
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2013 16:10:50 GMT -6
Are you afraid of failing? Why would you care? Can I come up with any more Yoda questions to answer a question? Well, I found your response condescending. Maybe because it was condescending. I tend to mix like you - I don't make creative decisions unless they ask me to...but, I feel like if they don't like my take on making things sound as good as I can get them, then I might not be the right guy. I find that opinions are like assholes - and especially with something as subjective as music. Here in Nashville, I rarely get anything that was recorded poorly on the front end...but my whole point was, I can't read people's minds...and most of the time, THEY don't even know what they want.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2013 16:52:50 GMT -6
But then it's like they're TOTALLY offended if I put a reverb on that they don't like...even though it's the Mix 1. Hey - I've even done it as a songwriter...gotten a mix back and gone, "Does this yahoo really not hear the 1Khz in the vocal and why in the hell would he mix the harms this loud...Is that snare in a well?...etc..." Like they had tattooed my baby with a picture of Pol Pot. Of course, I was never an asshole about it. Like Svart said, biting your tongue on either end - as the composer or the mixer - is the mature way of handling it...and having experience to know - "Hey - it's not the end product..."
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 19, 2013 17:08:20 GMT -6
Reverb is always contentious. Sometimes best to go without, or near without, for rough mixes. Avoids the criticism.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 19, 2013 18:42:12 GMT -6
Apologies all around then....apparently off day for me here. Agreed-they rarely know what they want, mainly (IME) for the same reason they need me. And the reason I always include a recall for revision. No faster way to get at what they DON'T want than show them--ha! I don't know that I've ever not used it. Usually it's some what I call tiny detail that subjectively didn't match their vision.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 20, 2013 8:41:29 GMT -6
Reverb is always contentious. Sometimes best to go without, or near without, for rough mixes. Avoids the criticism. Working with a lot of indie rock bands lately.. Every time I do a rough mix.. "you gonna put some reverb on that, right?" Second rough mix with what I think is an appropriate amount of reverb... Them: "Hey, we want some reverb on that, can you put reverb on that?" Me: "Uhh, there IS reverb on that..(solo the reverb to show it's dripping with reverb..)" Them: "oh yeah, that sounds good. Can you make it sound like that?" Me: "But.. that's JUST the reverb you hear.." Them: "Yeah, that's how we envisioned it sounding like, like a big wall of sound!!!" Me: Facepalm.. "Oh, ok, well.. Lets keep going on the recording and we'll work on this later.." Me: Goes to the "bathroom" but instead gets a shot of bourbon.. or three.
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Dec 20, 2013 8:48:45 GMT -6
Gosh I love reverb
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Dec 20, 2013 8:56:06 GMT -6
I usually look at it like trying to talk about colors to a partially color blind person. You both see a color differently. I have found that just having a good conversation with a client about music or anything really helps me understand there perspective and how they think. This goes a long way in avoiding conflicts.
My way of saying that the client interaction is sometime harder then the technical aspect of the mix. Getting inside of their head, because people do tend to leave to much for the mix.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 20, 2013 9:22:07 GMT -6
I usually look at it like trying to talk about colors to a partially color blind person. You both see a color differently. I have found that just having a good conversation with a client about music or anything really helps me understand there perspective and how they think. This goes a long way in avoiding conflicts. My way of saying that the client interaction is sometime harder then the technical aspect of the mix. Getting inside of their head, because people do tend to leave to much for the mix. Once I really started recording and mixing on a more regular basis, I started finding shortcuts. One such shortcut was to give the artist a list of things I want from them. 1. list of instruments, amps and gear. 2. list of songs and song descriptions 3. examples of what they want to sound like(both from a mix and a band standpoint); youtube links, etc. I think #3 helps more than anything. I can just go and listen without having all of the members of the band try to explain what they are and what they want to sound like, because every single one of them will give you a different version based on their own likes and dislikes.
|
|
|
Post by henge on Dec 20, 2013 10:43:43 GMT -6
3. examples of what they want to sound like(both from a mix and a band standpoint); youtube links, etc. I think #3 helps more than anything. I can just go and listen without having all of the members of the band try to explain what they are and what they want to sound like, because every single one of them will give you a different version based on their own likes and dislikes. Mandatory here. Cuts out a lot of discussion and fucking around. Yesterday I had the client over for some mastering i was doing for him. I don't like clients in the room when I'm mixing but he was driving past and he was bringing cash!!LOL Anyway because of the m/s processing I was using some notes in the solo section were too loud. I was about to fix it when he suggested putting a delay on the offending notes. Bear in mind I'w working with a stereo mix here. He said it was what worked for him so I thought wtf I'll try it. Sounded terrible BUT he loved it and that's all that mattered at that point. Smiling client = paying client! So instead of trying to educate, because my ego thought it was a shitty idea, the session goes smoothly and everyone's happy. Lesson: Make client happy regardless of what my stupid ego might be discussing with me!!LOL
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Dec 20, 2013 11:47:59 GMT -6
If you had to state the goal of the mixing process in one line, what would it be? Impossible due to the incredibly wide range of possible circumstances. Take this scenario for example. (Sorry, if it's too long a story) Last year my wife and I had a baby. In an effort to be home more I spent much of the year mixing major label pop (from first release EPs to big budget established artists) thinking it would give me more free time. Let's take a big budget album as an example. First I win a shoot out against other mixers. I've been given the job. Now I start mixing. The artist is on tour and it takes him 1-3 days to get back to the A&R man with mix notes. I don't communicate with him at all. Most of the producers are working guys hustling to make a buck like the rest of us. They're busy and hard to reach. Often 2-3 days for notes. The A&R man is a younger guy rising through the ranks, eager to make his mark BUT he answers to a senior guy who's very experienced and successful. Most of the vocals were recorded by a staff "engineer" at the record label's studio complex...no producer involvement, young A&R man "producing". Now HIS ass and job are riding on my mixes. Now, this album is PAYING!!! Good money. We have a baby coming...so before you say you wouldn't work under these conditions, consider that this is my ONLY source of income and I just don't have the luxury of saying no to big $$. Now, A&R and artist disagree on most mix notes so I'm doing fixes and then undoing them and then doing them again. This is BEFORE the producer has heard anything. This is just artist and (junior) A&R. Then producer notes. Then senior A&R. Then the artist for final approval. Then as many as 8 mix versions. This kind of scenario removes ALL altruistic notions. It hurts my heart to say it but in this scenario my #1, top o the heap goal is to get approval...to move on to the next song. I'm a mixer so things sound good. I'm doing a good job. I'm not, and nobody else seems to be, worried too much about the sonics. Notes are mostly about volume levels and content editing. So...1 sentence... "Get paid." At least in this scenario. I'm ALWAYS passionately striving for sonic success. Always. That's why I got in to this. I love it. But there's SO MANY other factors at play when it's a certain type of album.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 20, 2013 12:21:38 GMT -6
Now, this album is PAYING!!! Good money. I'll do 10 revisions in this scenario all day. Sign me up.
|
|